- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Thu, 02 May 2019 06:19:39 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-------- In message <0bab4850-fbe6-a318-71b2-a0e89a74ae74@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes : >I don't think that the discussion in the github issue really concluded. >It would be nice if Poul-Henning would follow-up on my replies. I really dont have anything to add to what I said a month ago. I can see the point, but not the compelling argument. First, It's not like we cannot move a URI in SH. Sh-string are perfectly capable of that, and I put sh-binary in the spec as "Kernighan-Escape"[1], should that fail. Second, If demarcating URIs in SH was important, somebody would surely have spotted the deliberate mistake in the strawman syntax I proposed a month ago ? So no, I'm 100% with Mark that URIs are not worth another several months of nothing much happening to this draft. Poul-Henning [1] https://www.lysator.liu.se/c/bwk-on-pascal.html section 2.6 -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2019 06:20:07 UTC